Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Do you have solar panels?

Jump to new
brty said:
Those figures of yours almost completely back up Bintangs arguments.

For instance if both sets of panels were the same (I note you do have the w/kw figure), and you had half the number facing east(with the other half facing west) as that facing north, then the outputs would be nearly the same for 8.30am.
Click to expand...
That does seem to be the case based on the numbers although what I really should have done is taken a measurement from the west-facing panels as well (which I simply didn't think of doing at the time).

A more complex argument with all of this relates to inverter sizing. Eg 2kW facing N with a 2kW inverter versus 1kW each facing E + W with a smaller and cheaper inverter due to the lower peak output.

I suspect that the results in Summer might be significantly different, given that the sun in shining from the SE in the morning such that there is zero direct sunlight onto a north-facing panel versus significant sun shining on an east facing panel. I'll have to wait until Summer to take such a measurement however.

Anyway, on a completely different note and on the subject of renewable energy generally. Just as my solar output is getting lower and my house has turned from being a net exporter to a net importer of electricity, so too large scale wind generation has picked up and inflows to the hydro schemes are increasing thus pushing up forced ("use it or lose it") generation from a few of the schemes thus far. Whilst there's a big imbalance between the extent of household solar versus large scale hydro in the grid, it does illustrate the synergies between different sources of renewable energy.
 
If the feed in tariff is lower than purchase price, I would still try to get the optimal north facing production and then change the home usage to target the max production window:
run the pool from 10Am to 2PM, run dishwasher, washing machine, cook your bread/slkow cooker during that time?
I am luck to have an older system with high FIT so my interest is to feed as much as possible and consume by night
The stupidity of a low FIT is that it actually incite people to consume as much as possible during daytime (and so peak hours)
but when has any policy been wise
 
qldfrog said:
The stupidity of a low FIT is that it actually incite people to consume as much as possible during daytime (and so peak hours)
but when has any policy been wise
Click to expand...
From a policy perspective, the most sensible approach is to offer a FIT for all (gross) that is generated.
 
Electricity pricing is an absolute minefield. Always has been and probably always will be.

Your household electricity connection (no solar) is basically providing you with 4 things.

1. Physical connection to electricity supply infrastructure (the grid itself).

2. Capacity on the grid.

3. Energy (from power stations).

4. Generating capacity.

An attempt was made in Tasmania in 1994-95 to separate out the charges. Suffice to say that it was easily the most unpopular thing the power industry ever did, community opposition was almost universal, and I doubt that anyone in Australia will try it again. It was actually implemented, but became the primary focus of a state election campaign and only lasted a year or so before a reversion to a more conventional pricing structure.

Practically every electricity, gas and water utility in the country was watching it closely and most had ideas of doing something similar. The saw what happened, were glad that they weren't the ones to try it, and promptly buried all thoughts of attempting it. That said, the telecommunications industry was also watching closely and has sort of implemented it at least so far as mobiles an internet are concerned (and Telstra would do it in an instant with landlines if they thought that government would let them).

From a rational perspective it was the right answer. Charge consumers to access the network and let them do whatever they want with regard to consumption. Generate your own power? No problem, not even a problem if everyone did it since it would have been economically sustainable. Likewise it mattered not if a house used 500 kWh a year or if they used 25,000 kWh a year - nobody was cross subsidising anyone else at any level of usage.

The crux of the problem with "conventional" charging methods is that fixed network costs are recovered by volume consumption. That works fine until the masses decide to install solar or burn firewood, at which point the power distributor either goes broke or finds a workaround (like making it difficult to install solar or burn wood). No prizes for guessing who assisted those anti-wood heating campaigns in Tas after the Network Charge was scrapped, and no prizes for guessing that there isn't a single power distributor in the country who is keen on residential solar today.

Probably the easiest way to explain it in layman's terms is to use an analogy as follows.

Suppose that I'm in the business of renting houses (ie a landlord) and I charge $350 per week for each house. However, government considers my charges to be excessive and after doing some research finds that the average front door is opened 10 times per day. On that basis I must then charge $140 per week rent plus a $3 door fee every time the front door is opened.

That works fine in theory, I still get my $350 per week ($140 rent plus $210 in door usage fees) and you could even argue that there might be a loose correlation between the number of times the door is used and likely overall wear and tear on the property.

It sounds fine until I see that someone is aggressively marketing steps which they will install on both sides of any window that faces even remotely north, thus enabling tenants to use the windows to gain access to the property. And there's a government subsidy to get the steps installed, aimed at reducing the wear and tear on front doors. And since everyone knows that doors have become expensive to use in recent times, there's a rush of people getting the steps installed.

Now what am I supposed to do? Well I could increase the door fee for those still using them. Trouble is, that just encourages more people to get window steps installed or to at least minimise the number of times they open and close the door. I see that there are companies now offering advice on how to minimise the use of doors so as to save money.

So I can't charge enough rent to cover costs, can't get the money via door fees, and government is encouraging people to climb through the windows. And I'm not allowed to charge a window usage fee. Now what do I do? Start a scare campaign about the dangers of window steps?

It sounds ridiculous but that's essentially the problem the electricity industry has with solar. Can't recover fixed costs directly via a fixed charge due to political constraints and can't recover them via usage charges without prompting consumers to install solar.

The 8 cent FIT, by making solar panels less attractive financially, is simply a "band aid" measure. It doesn't really fix a broken business model, but it slows down the rate of solar installation at least for a while. In due course I expect we'll see the FIT further reduced toward the wholesale rate, possibly even directly linked to it..... :2twocents
 
qldfrog said:
If the feed in tariff is lower than purchase price, I would still try to get the optimal north facing production and then change the home usage to target the max production window
Click to expand...
I follow the principle, but I doubt that most people will effectively manage to do this.

Solar output is all over the place on a typical day with part cloud, part clear sky. It's nowhere near as constant as people tend to assume 5kW now, 2kW a minute later etc. So unless it's an automated process (such a device does exist) then it's difficult to achieve manually.

I can certainly see that people might manage to shift a bit of load, but if you want the heating on at 7am and cook dinner at 6pm then that isn't likely to change for most people.:2twocents
 
I am in Perth and, as I mentioned in an earlier post, we have been investigating solar panel installation.

I have had several quotes from companies which appear reputable. The quotes, for a 3kw system, range from $4870 to $6999. Different products etc.

Electricity costs are (last night's State budget) going up again.

My hesitation is the question mark around the current WA tarrif model where consumers are essentially charged by the number of units used.

However there is speculation about changing the "model". I have not been following this closely but my understanding is that there could be a shift to a fixed price for being connected to "the network" (to be paid by all consumers irrespective of whether they have panels or not) plus a decreased unit cost.

This, in turn, would diminish the advantage of having solar panels in WA....

Thoughts welcome...
 
Muschu said:
However there is speculation about changing the "model". I have not been following this closely but my understanding is that there could be a shift to a fixed price for being connected to "the network" (to be paid by all consumers irrespective of whether they have panels or not) plus a decreased unit cost.
Click to expand...

There has been a general recognition in the industry for at least 20 years that this has to happen at some point since the model of recovering fixed costs via a loading on unit prices only works in a monopoly situation with a one-way flow of electricity from power stations to consumers. Once you have significant use of solar etc and people generating their own power by various other means too (eg gas) then it falls in a heap spectacularly and sends the distributors broke.

It was actually implemented in Tasmania in the mid-1990's but, in short, it was reversed after just 12 months since neither the Hydro nor the state government itself could withstand the political pain. And it was a LOT of pain I can assure you with public opposition almost universal despite attempts to sway opinion. It was half implemented in 1994, fully implemented in 1995, completely scrapped in 1996. It made massive sense economically and technically but from a public relations perspective it was nothing short of a disaster.

So if WA's going to try it then I'm 100% certain that every electricity distributor and retailer across the country will be watching what happens very closely as will Telstra etc with regard to fixed phone services.

As for solar etc, well certainly if the unit prices are reduced well then that does reduce the financial benefit of installing solar panels. No argument there whatsoever, the only question being whether the actual unit prices remain high enough to make solar viable. WA's high reliance on gas means that they'll never achieve unit generation costs as low as the eastern states can achieve with coal and hydro (although gas is still reasonably cheap in the overall context).
 
bellenuit said:
In 5 years it could be cheaper to get off the grid entirely
Click to expand...

In some cases it already is cheaper to go off grid and that is true even if you literally are the electric company.

There's quite a few stand alone solar installations at Hydro sites here in Tas. Mostly for monitoring water levels and collecting other data but there's some which actually run substantial motor loads which operate occasionally.

The reason is simple. If you've got a dam, canal, flume, monitoring station etc in the middle of nowhere then it's cheaper to go solar than to maintain a grid connection in an area that otherwise has no need for the grid. That is true even if you quite literally own the power stations which generate the power that goes into the grid in the first place.

It's the same with many other things of that nature too. Eg weather stations or electronic traffic signs which operate intermittently (eg the school zone signs in Tas simply have a solar panel sitting above the sign itself, all mounted on the same pole).
 
Many thanks for your comments Smurf. It all seems something of a "punt" really.

I should have added, in case the quotes I mentioned seemed high, that we are in quite a large 2 storey home with a steeply pitched roof.

Today's Perth paper carries a full page ad from a solar installation company. Part of this reads: "The Australian Government reviewing the Renewable Energy Target (RET). Rooftop Solar Price May Go Up By Almost 80%!!!"

Then, further down, "BOOK NOW AND CLAIM GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES"


Interesting tactics with the use of words like "reviewing" and "may go up".

So much speculation and hard selling going on - at least in the press. Fortunately the companies I have spoken with came recommended and I did not feel pressurised.

The future in terms of this topic is rather obscure however and I guess any decision made at this point comes with associated risk.

I wonder whether the budget will reveal any relevant info?

Anyway, once again, thank you for your comments. I appreciate the effort and the information.










Smurf1976 said:
There has been a general recognition in the industry for at least 20 years that this has to happen at some point since the model of recovering fixed costs via a loading on unit prices only works in a monopoly situation with a one-way flow of electricity from power stations to consumers. Once you have significant use of solar etc and people generating their own power by various other means too (eg gas) then it falls in a heap spectacularly and sends the distributors broke.

It was actually implemented in Tasmania in the mid-1990's but, in short, it was reversed after just 12 months since neither the Hydro nor the state government itself could withstand the political pain. And it was a LOT of pain I can assure you with public opposition almost universal despite attempts to sway opinion. It was half implemented in 1994, fully implemented in 1995, completely scrapped in 1996. It made massive sense economically and technically but from a public relations perspective it was nothing short of a disaster.

So if WA's going to try it then I'm 100% certain that every electricity distributor and retailer across the country will be watching what happens very closely as will Telstra etc with regard to fixed phone services.

As for solar etc, well certainly if the unit prices are reduced well then that does reduce the financial benefit of installing solar panels. No argument there whatsoever, the only question being whether the actual unit prices remain high enough to make solar viable. WA's high reliance on gas means that they'll never achieve unit generation costs as low as the eastern states can achieve with coal and hydro (although gas is still reasonably cheap in the overall context).
Click to expand...
 
bellenuit said:
In 5 years it could be cheaper to get off the grid entirely

http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/in-5-years-it-could-be-cheaper-to-get-off-the-grid-entirely
Click to expand...

Interesting article indeed but I doubt their 5 year projection will become reality - 10+ years perhaps. The installed cost for off-grid generation will come down over time but that is not the only consideration. A better way of looking at the cost of going off-grid would be the cost recovery period for assumed average annual usage. If you need to live in a house for 20 years before you achieve breakeven on installation and maintenance does it make financial sense? Since the average homeowner shifts house approximately every 7 years, cost savings break-even needs to occur prior to this to be a compelling financial proposition for homeowners.

Government installation and FIT subsidies drove solar installations because the cost recovery time was compelling. With these subsidies now reduced and likely completely phased out soon, the case for going off-grid weakens further.

The logic deployed in this argument then is dubious...
UBS argues that battery storage at the household level is likely to be most cost effective if the household remains connected to the grid, and simply uses the grid when storage is insufficient. “Since the current grid is largely a sunk cost there is little penalty to society for using the existing grid in this fashion,” it notes.
Click to expand...

A hybrid grid/off-grid installation would incur higher installation and ongoing costs with breakeven cost savings taking much longer to achieve.
 
Diversity of demand. Whilst a household may well use an "average" amount of electricity, in most cases there is a huge variation day to day and week to week and any stand alone system needs to be sized to meet the maximum load, not the average.

Eg if you're in Adelaide then an off-grid system needs to be able to run the air-conditioning on the hottest days of Summer, noting that solar panels lose efficiency as temperature rises and there's no guarantee that every single day of a heatwave will have clear blue sky.

Or if you're in Launceston then it needs to work in the middle of winter. If it's going down to -2 overnight then consumption will be huge for space heating. And if the fog hangs around most of the day then you'll (1) be boosting any solar water heater with electricity and (2) not getting much output from the solar panels. You're going to need some seriously big batteries to supply 85 kWh per day and keep that up without direct sunshine. Then in the middle of Summer the system will be supplying no more than 10% of that consumption whilst the sun is shining.

Even in places with less climatic variation there is still significant peaks in the load. Eg your average load may well be 0.5 kW in an energy-efficient house. Now just turn the oven and hot plates on to cook dinner meanwhile the heating is also running and you're drawing 12 kW, all of that coming straight from the batteries and needing a sufficiently sized inverter to actually supply that peak load.

The entire principle of the grid relies on the reality that not every consumer will draw their peak load at the same time. Eg if you exclude heavy industry then here in Tas the absolute maximum per-customer load is about 5 kW. Take out things like office blocks, shopping centres and so on and it's even lower. But I've got a 7 kW electric space heater in the lounge room and the house next door has 10kW of oven and hot plates (and a reverse cyclee A/C, and hot water, and all the normal appliances). Very few homes have an actual peak load under 10kW in practice.

It's the same with all other such systems. Eg roads work because only a very small portion of cars are actually being driven at any one time. The average car is completely idle (engine off) around 96% of the time (stats I got from a Ford dealer - they'd calculated it based on average distance traveled and average travel speed as measured by the vehicle itself). Same with the internet. Same with the copper phone network and same with the mobile network. Same with airlines, public transport, water supply and even supermarkets. It all works on the basis that only a small percentage of users will apply their own peak demand at any one time. So we can get away with relatively little capacity simply because it's shared around amongst many users at different times.

I can run the heater, clothes dryer and do some welding at the same time simply because not everyone is doing so right now. We're all sharing the same generating capacity, using it at different times. That applies on a bigger level too - eg Victoria has a peak electricity demand during the afternoon in Summer whilst in Tasmania it's morning and evening in Winter. Hence the logic of connecting the two grids together - we're sharing the same capacity and using it at different times.

But once you go off-grid, well then you need to be able to meet your own peak alone. Depending on location, now we're talking about 15kW inverters and storing 500+ kWh in batteries. That gets seriously expensive.

So how do off-grid homes do it? Take a look and in almost all cases you'll find that they aren't really energy self-sufficient at all or if they are, then they are not a "typical" house. You find a wood fire for heating or you find LPG hot water and cooking etc or the whole place is unusually energy efficient to start with. To say they are off-grid is true in the literal sense, they are not connected to the electricity grid, but it's like saying you've cut your petrol consumption to zero whilst conveniently failing to mention that diesel car you just bought.

I seriously doubt that we'll see everyone in Melbourne burning firewood to keep warm anytime soon since doing so creates all sorts of issues in a city that size. And we're not going to rebuild every house to take advantage of passive solar anytime soon. As such, we're still going to be using some form of centrally supplied energy for a long time to come, be it gas or electricity. One of those two systems will survive - though it's certainly plausible that we see either a move to off-grid electricity + gas (thus making the power grid redundant in residential areas) or a move toward "all electric" (thus seeing the demise of gas). :2twocents
 
The temperature at the moment on the Sunshine Coast is 34 degrees. Luckily, with some foresight, I had an 8Kw airconditioning system installed about a month ago. Also it is fortunate that my roof solar panel system reaches peak capacity on the hottest sunny days and offsets the expense of running the AC. Cloudy hot humid days are not so good.
 
Calliope said:
The temperature at the moment on the Sunshine Coast is 34 degrees. Luckily, with some foresight, I had an 8Kw airconditioning system installed about a month ago.
Click to expand...

This is not going to go down well on the "Resisting Climate Hysteria" thread.:rolleyes:
 
Macquack said:
This is not going to go down well on the "Resisting Climate Hysteria" thread.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sshhh, Mac: Leave the flat-earthers and climate change deniers on their own soap boxes. :banghead:
The smart money is on renewable energy.

wrt Calliope's comment: Solar panels lose efficiency the hotter it gets. If they produce at a reasonable rate at this time of year, the longer period of sunshine per day has more to do with it.
I can only report from Perth conditions; around summer solstice, our SPV produces at a rate of 6-7 KWh per KW installed. Six months later, it's down to around 4, even less when it's overcast. However, on very hot summer days, the efficiency drops below 50%. E.g. one day recently fried an outdoor thermometer, the sensor of which was rated to only 50 degC. Although our panel orientation is slightly biased to the (cooler) morning hours, the daily rate fell below 5 KWh per KW.

Effects of Temperature

The output of a solar cell, and therefore a solar panel, is affected by its temperature. As a result the power output will be reduced by between 0.25%(amorphous cells) and 0.5%(most crystalline cells) for each degree C of temperature rise.
Panel temperatures in the summer in warm climates can easily reach 50oC resulting in a 12% reduction in output compared to the rated output at 25oC.
This reduction in efficiency may be important to you if you have a high electricity demand in the summer.
more at http://www.solar-facts.com/panels/panel-efficiency.php
Click to expand...
 
This may interest some people


Solar power inquiry conducted by Senate to shine spotlight on complaints with retailers
A Senate inquiry is expected to hear from hundreds of Australians who have been hit with high costs and hidden fees after switching to solar power.

A group called Solar Citizens collected 500 complaints from households around the country, mostly about the big three power retailers AGL, Energy Australia and Origin.

"Solar owners face unfair or hidden fees on their electricity bills, also large service fees when they install their solar systems in some cases, and also exorbitant fees in rural areas for people connecting up to the grid," national director Claire O'Rourke said.

Nearly 1.3 million Australian households have installed solar panels with the aim of being green and saving money. They anticipated the investment would drastically reduce electricity bills.

But Victorian couple Cas and Chris O'Neill said while they loved having the panels, they had not enjoyed the drama with AGL over the bills.
Do you know more about this story? Email investigations@abc.net.au

"It was like working against a system designed by Kafka," Mr O'Neill said.

The couple said they battled with AGL over billing problems for more than a decade.

The biggest issue was a secret cut to the rate they were paid to feed power back to the grid.

After taking their case to the Energy Ombudsman, the O'Neills received an apology from AGL and about $3,000 in compensation.

Retired engineer Athol Park was another unhappy customer.

He said he thought he would be able to pay off his $19,000 solar system quickly.

He signed up with Origin four years ago to get paid what he thought would be about 60 cents per kilowatt for his excess electricity.

But Origin said it never received his paperwork for that rate and in the meantime the tariff dropped.

"In the end Origin sent me a letter and said, 'Look, the cut-off date for 31 cents is such and such, you either take 31 cents or you get nothing ... we're not negotiating further'," Mr Park said.

The Energy Retailers Association said it was an adjustment phase for the industry and it understood customers were sometimes unhappy.

"No way are the retailers their enemy. In many cases they are offering deals to buy the excess electricity to go back into the grid," spokesman Cameron O'Reilly said.

"Those customers need to know they have choice of retailers, they should shop around."

The inquiry stopped taking submissions in December. It is expected to hold public hearings next month and report back to Parliament in March.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-27/inquiry-to-shine-spotlight-on-solar-power-complaints/6043264
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

R
Scale Economies
Replies
3
Views
1K
RickyY
R
R
What Kind of Buckets Do You Have?
Replies
1
Views
2K
luutzu
luutzu
R
The 7 Moats of Quality Companies
Replies
7
Views
7K
divs4ever
divs4ever
Bill M
Best Hotel Booking Site - Who Do You Use?
Replies
14
Views
4K
The Triangle
The Triangle
Lantern
What if China stops buying Aussie coal?
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
Smurf1976
Smurf1976
Top